For those of you feverishly awaiting new Ordinary Events material, I’m working on a post that answers the age-old question, “Was Plato a Bayesian?” (Spoiler: not so much.) But in the meantime, I absolutely have to share Bertrand Russell’s epic takedown of Socrates. The poor man didn’t know what hit him! (Emphasis is mine.)
The Platonic Socrates was a pattern to subsequent philosophers for many ages. What are we to think of him ethically? (I am concerned only with the man as Plato portrays him.) His merits are obvious. He is indifferent to worldly success, so devoid of fear that he remains calm and urbane and humorous to the last moment, caring more for what he believes to be truth than for anything else whatever. He has, however, some very grave defects. He is dishonest and sophistical in argument, and in his private thinking he uses intellect to prove conclusions that are to him agreeable, rather than in a disinterested search for knowledge. There is something smug and unctuous about him, which reminds one of a bad type of cleric. His courage in the face of death would have been more remarkable if he had not believed that he was going to enjoy eternal bliss in the company of the gods. Unlike some of his predecessors, he was not scientific in his thinking, but was determined to prove the universe agreeable to his ethical standards. This is treachery to truth, and the worst of philosophic sins. As a man, we may believe him admitted to the communion of saints; but as a philosopher he needs a long residence in a scientific purgatory. (History of Western Philosophy, pp. 142-3.)
There is something relatable in Socrates’ shortcomings. Who among us doesn’t defend that which we want to believe, from time to time? Who among us is so clear-eyed as to always spot the flaws in our own arguments? The Platonic Socrates was deeply human in his arrogance, his blind spots.
But of course, Socrates is no longer just a human - he is a philosophical legend 2,400+ years in the making. And an understanding of the history of human thought must include an appropriate critique of that legendary status. We ought to hold philosophers to a higher standard in seeking capital-T Truth. We ought to kill our idols.